Discussion on:

The seven habits of wildly unsuccessful CIOs

I've been waiting for an artcile like this one. These seven habits should be studied closely by everyone.

Great job, Ms. Kidd.

Yes, technology decisions are important but... Just as our colleague mentioned the importance of training, taking care of and developing your people (treating them fairly and like human beings), making them feel like part of the solution, not the problem is also key. Managing and communicating down is just as important, if not more important, as managing upward and across the organization.

As an 'Officer' of the company, one must always remember that the mandate is to deliver systems in alignment with the mission and objectives of the business. This requires an understanding of how the business runs, to the same level as the heads of Marketing, Administration, Sales, Production, or whatever.
The company is in business to 'make money', not deliver clever systems. So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I find it a little difficult to believe that anyone is still running this!

Windows 3.1 didn't have the blue screen of death, it had the black screen of death. When you dialed the helpdesk, the first thing you heard was "Did you reboot?" I generally get at least two weeks between reboots with W2K.

Does anybody still write device drivers for 3.1? If not, can you run it on a new PC with the latest NIC, Video Card, etc?

When new PCs come with the license and media for a newer O/S, does it really make sense to install one that old?

I'm not a CIO, or ever likely to be, but I think I might be able to justify retiring Windows 3.1!

I can almost guarantee that they're probably using their PC's to run a terminal emulation program for data entry on a server of some sort, and nothing else! No need for email, internet, word processing or anything else that tends to distract worker bees from their assigned duties.

Sounds like a smart decision to me!

Even if all they are running is a terminal emulation program (which you are only guessing at), it still is a dumb decision. You could probably pick up old working terminals for free.

Funny how someone who doesn't think others should have access to e-mail, Internet and other "distractions" has time during the day to read and post, isn't it?!? I always like that kind of management logic.

I'll go with the first reaction. Where do you find people to support Win 3.1? Willing to work on it as non-IT employees? What about printer drivers and such?

But in that respect it probably is a secure environment - who in 2004 would know how to hack a 3.1 box?

Yeah, I can't think of any reason to stick with Windows 3.1. No support, no drivers, no tech worth his salt wants to work on it. Doesn't anybody remember the constant crashes, headaches with this "operating environment?" Terminal emulation? Puh-leeze. Terminal services in Win2K/XP can run circles around anything in Win31. If you don't want users in the internet, email, or whatever, use group policy to prevent that.

OK, IF you are a very small company, and IF your business is very stable and not at all dependent on technology, and IF you plan on using the same software FOREVER, and IF you'll never need to exchange files, use email or go on the internet, go ahead and stay with Win31. The rest of us will move on to the 21st century!

Hey, I'm still running 3.1!
Only on one old PC, but still - it works for the job I'm doing with it (which happens to be a terminal program!) and the dang thing absolutely never crashes, if you can believe it. An EPS 386 box no less. Ha ha!

They're a small business with an infrastructure that works and they have neither the knowledge nor incentive to change it.

I know plenty of places still running the old versions of fox pro, simply because it hasn't failed them yet.

Your support issues are very valid if you are doing hardware replacements. But the CIO stated they were not. Now 2 possibilities here is the company is staving off death by not spending any unnessacary spending and not growing so no need for new equipment. My bigger concern will be when growth does occur that requires new equipment that drivers and such will not be available for then how will they migrate? TYhe tools will long be gone. If the apps they run are run in terminal mode, as suggested by one reply, then this will be a non-issue, but if the data is kept on or processed by the desktop then migration could be a major issue.

Ray O'Connell
Senior Consultant
HP Customer Services

If a company really wants to save money they typically try to find ways not to upgrade their equipment and OS's. They don't buy new hardware, they recycle the old hardware... actually taking some machines apart and keeping spare parts to fix other machines. Ebay is full of such equipment. Of course this isn't a skill set taught to the latest crop of MSCE's. Many large companies still have DOS accounting and administration systems so it doesn't make any sense to install new OS's that don't exactly support DOS. Their isn't a "boot to dos" capability in ME, 2000 or XP although I have managed to get some clients to run dos applications over a VPN with Windows XP professional clients and a Novell 6.x server. Although its not the easiest solution to install..for some customers it makes the most sense.

You cant be serious!!

If you want to save serious money and if you are using a well set legacy application for doin major jobs of a company then there is nothing better than DOS (+win3.1 /95)and Novell 3.x or 4.x. It makes much better sense not to even upgrade such an application - say a typical financial transaction processing appn.because it has been completely debugged, runningg quitewell, doing the job it is supposed to do very well. And it is running at lightening fast. Ok, no frills. So what? We all specs freaks are so used to upgrading our desktops everytime processor/OS versions come out, most of us have forgotten what really good computing speed / cost ratios are. Or used to be. Yet, how many of us really go out and buy a Ferrari to replace our well serving pickups.

Is this OS still available for purchase? If not, how does this company pay for new installs of 3.1? I'm just curious because I've always thought that companies need to stay current on business critical software so they can expand people and applications to meet business needs. I believe there are always pro's and con's to software upgrades; but I thought it was taboo to stay on a version which is no longer supported or available.

KO

During the DotBomb, I saw waaaay too many companies hiring temporary workers to perform critical tasks. They claimed to hire these expensive workers as a cost-saving measure.

In reality, they were trying to minimize their liability for firing people without cause, hiring people without skills, and generally violating every right the Labour Movement won for us.

In the end, they ended up with few employees, even less employee loyalty, and angry investors.

I know quite a few successful organization still having dos applications and have no plans to replace because it continues to work.

POS, distribution, basic accounting... I suppose I can see these still running just fine on DOS (Having Looked at a newer Incarnation of Oracle's suite, might as well still be DOS, their so called GUI still feels dumb terminal'ish. They have done nothing to leverage the capabilities of a Graphical Environment that I can see).

On the other hand, R&D, CAD/CAM, Biotech, Multimedia... Not a chance I would want to support those workers on Win 3.1.

I am a testimony of that. My main client used DBASE II and clipper for their system. I know it works because it has proved to over the years. I develop the application in clipper and the great thing about it is with a little tweaks, everything works perfectly with any OS you can think of. Even VISTA!

The story about WIN 3.1 was an old story. IF you noticed, the newest OS mentioned was Windows 98. If it had been later than '98 or '99 the story would have mentioned Windows ME, Windows 2000 or Windows XP. It didn't. I have a feeling that the point was that company didn't upgrade to the newest OS just because Microsoft released it. It's like a company using XP even though Vista was released.

The story was written in 2003, not in 1998 which means that Win2k, and WinXP had been released.

Having said that I think that today it is fairly simple to find a cut-down version of linux which supports the latest hardware, and can use the data of old (win3.1) systems. The question would be "Does the IT department have the knowledge to support it?" If not, it could even cost more than new windows (Vista or Server 2008) licences.

Something that should be considered is where a company has no choice but to support DOS and older equipment.

Although the majority of my network is running on Windows XP Pro, I still have a Windows 95 and a DOS PC that I have to support (with the DOS OS on a 386 no less).

I've tried to replace and/or virtualize the DOS box but have been unsuccessful. Basically, the DOS box controls an old radial insertion machine with proprietary DOS software created by a company that no longer exists. However, the machine runs like a champ. The radial insertion machine control software cannot and will not run on anything but a DOS/386 PC. The cost to replace the radial insertion machine - over $80,000! Can the company justify this cost - NO!

Remember, being in IT does not mean buying the latest and greatest. It means leveraging and supporting technology in the best interests of the company you work for. Sometimes it means getting to use the newest technologies, but it also means supporting the old stuff too!

Companies that invest in learning outperform the market by more than 45%. Companies that don't, underperform by 22%. - ASTD

Thanks, dsurch, for the arresting numbers. But please clarify and help me out: what does the ASTD mean when they talk about "the market?" The native market of the CIO's company? The stock market? Or what? Thanks!

-- Pete Wilson
http://www.pwilson.net/

Peter's point is good. I would also add that the original premise is too broad. Training is expensive. A CIO/CTO who sends staff on training they don't need is wasting the company's money. Training is good when it is targeted: the right people on the right courses. When contemplating training one should always ask "what is the benefit to the company?".

ASTD = American Society for Training & Development (http://www.astd.org/ASTD)

Pete,

I have read several articles and studies on company performance. Based on my experience I would guess that the ASTD study is referring to the stock market. Consultants can compare performance easily using stock price performance as a general indication of success. There is a strong coorelation but not always a certain correlation to stock price and a companies success. Enron for example.

Over the long run this is probably a fair measure to use. It isn't proof by any means. Too many other possible factors are involved.

While it may be a resonable assumption that companies that do more training may be more successful. It is not proven simply because groups that spend more on training have higher stock appreciation. It is still an assumption not a fact based simply on stock prices. Even if we accept that stock prices usually coorelate with company success, there are still too many other possible contributing factors. The coorelation still exists and may be true. We just can't tell with any degree of certainty without looking into the details very carefully.

Bill Rushmore

Make a decision. Once.

A familiar problem I have encountered within multiple CIO offices which I have supported is the inability to make a decision in the first place, and then waffling on the decision after it has been made.

This prevents the executors of the actions from being able to move forward with a degree of confidence, and gives wiggle room to those who want to avoid the results of the decision.

This is ESPECIALLY true when implementing and then enforcing processes and procedures.

Leaving aside the problem of Management v. Leadership, many CIOs focus exclusively on managing the technology in their companies. They ignore the fact that the IT staff must implement, administer, maintain, and troubleshoot the technology that the CIO finds so compelling. these people are too often viewed by the CIO as either irrelevant or as obstacles to his goals. Symptoms of this habit are slashing training budgets even while adopting cutting-edge systems, curtailing travel, and failing to communicate with the staff.
Failing to communicate is perhaps the worst mistake that can be made. Imagine a coach who never talks to his team except after the game to tell them how badly they played.

not much more needs to be added other than this certainly happens more often than not.

I have to agree. The greatest failure a CIO can make is to forget their role is to lead - lead the company in IT matters and lead the IT department/group/etc..

Leading consists of three prime areas:
1. Developing a vision
2. Communicating the vision
3. Reaching consensus

Strictly speaking a CIO doesn't need to develop a vision. But it is their responsibility to ensure that a vision is developed and is understood.

Again, strictly speaking a CIO doesn't need to communicate the vision. In fact, if a CIO needs to communicate it there is probably a problem. However, ensuring communications is the MOST important element and the CIO absolutely MUST be involved. (So I agree).

However, having a vision and making sure that everyone knows what it is still doesn't do everything. The final task for a CIO must be to ensure that everyone buys into the vision (or at least no one actively opposes it). Without this final consensus step the vision will never actually be realized and all the rest will be an exercise in futility.

Unless a CIO can motivate their troops they are only a trumped-up Sysop. The value of a CIO is in their ability to bring synergy within their department and between the business and technology.

Glen Ford
Can Da Software
IS Project Management
Business Systems Improvement

Exellent point and analogy! There was an NFL owner "who never talked to his team except after the game to tell them how badly they played". The Vikings owner this year, after his team lost at home to drop to 6-2 or 6-3, did just that, telling the players he was embarrassed the fans had to witness that game. Despite a 6-0 start, the Vikings missed the playoffs...

Few things motivate as well as wanting to please a manager you enjoy working for because he or she makes you feel like a valued member of the team. Unfortunately there are very few managers that inspire like that. It's hard work!

Nice article! Contrasting the enlightened CIO against the endarkened one underscores the points. It's a very readable and engaging technique. Thanks.

And those of us who grew up reading the kids magazine "Highlights" are surely startled to learn that Goofus made it all the way to the Executive level. Will he never learn from Gallant?



- Tom

I think one thing lacking is a perspective on how CIO roles (and, therefore, dos and donts) are different not only in different size companies but also in companies that are at different maturity stages. The things that can make you a very successful CIO in a start-up are the same things that can get you into trouble in a more mature company, for example.

I know a CIO who sincerely believes the business units (which make the organization's money) work for MIS. "They'll use what we give them." That's OK, though, since the same exec bought insufficient licenses for a critical application, thereby preventing simultaneous access by all who need to (simultaneously) access the app. Dilbertian.

Unemployed older workers are finding that competance, training, and experience are a negative factor on resumes. Managers are always afraid of having their replacement already on staff.

Good article only flaw I see is that the CIO/CTO is not where most of this resides! Yes they set the tone and flavor of IT, but if the lower managers in IT don't understand these traits they will lead their group into the abyss just as effectively as the CIO. They also will not be looking for these traits in their employees which can allow projects to go off on tangents never imagined.

Ray O'Connell
Senior Consultant
HP Customer Services

I have read many articles like this one, which contain points I mostly agree with. However, some IT departments that make the decision not to upgrade for the wrong reasons. Upgrading is work! I worked for a company that used a flat file database program until 1999 when Y2K issues forced them to change. Did it cause problems? Absolutely! The program had no networking support and the IT group ran around updating computers with floppies each day.

The program was kept for two reasons. First, they didn't want to take the time to learn how to use a relational database system. Secondly, a select group of people knew the programming language and changing would have resulted in a loss of job security. The IT group did get new computers every year though. Why they needed new computers to run the same old program never seemed logical to me.

TestMax is exactly right. Why work evenings and weekends to do upgrades if company management allows you to slack off and not ever have to improve things? Upgrading is a pain, and creates problems for awhile, but that is the price of progress. Good CIOs and other employees pay that price.

I understand if a company is in survival mode and just can't do that. But if it is because a manager is lazy and, as I've often seen, gliding through the last few years to retirement, there is no excuse.

I still can't imagine working in a Win 3.1 environment. How do you recruit quality employees to work with 20-year-old technology? I worked for a heating oil company, a very mature and slowly shrinking industry, and even there we implemented new technology as we outfitted trucks with automated metering equipment, automated batch feeds to the billing and accounting systems, interfaced with the bank to do electronic debiting, etc.

No, you don't adopt new technology for it's own sake, but if you can't find an excellent business case for upgrading your environment over 20 years, there is something terribly, terribly wrong. I can't believe that was used an example of someone to look up to (a CIO who kept his users on Win 3.1).

These articles might help the future wanna-be CIOs. I have never heard or seen anyone above the Manager position spending time reading these kinds of articles.
Never ever saw them browsing the Net. They are in meetings, discussions......I think only the techies make it a point to read these stuff. And by the time they become CIO (and managers) they are likely to forget all that they have learnt.

So is this article really useful? I know there would be some CIO and managers who would read this, but they would be in a minority.

Critical self analysis is essential for all good leaders, and CIO's are no exception. I scan for articles that will help me honestly evaluate myself in my CIO role whenever I can find the time.

Whatever you do--[as it has previously been commented in this article], don't make a decision..and then stonewall your staff when they come up with an idea. Ignore their comments--then make their comments your own and submit THAT to your supervisor. Your points will excel but you'll be lucky if you get to your car without it blowing up...

Do not weigh all of the options and ALWAYS select the cheapest. There is a reason why some options are cheaper than others. You get what you pay for.

Note: If the the cheapest option falls through, you may have to go with the most expensive (and possibly not the best) option to meet time constraints.